I think we need a 6 person bench, but fewer replacements. 3 is too few.
The problem with this is it gives the big teams an advantage. i.e. Melbourne and Finch, Easts and Mortimer, Brisbane and Marshall and even Cowboys and Te Marie Martin.
Till this year we never had a reserve halfback. they always carried one.

Since the late 80’s/early 90’s, EVERY rule change and interpretation change has been for either a)ensuring the team in possession stays in possession and/or b)artificially speeding the game up.
The counter to this is that EVERY tactic that savvy coaches have come up with is to slow the game down.
What has happened therefore is that the game is played in a manner whereby players deliberately push the rules to the limit in some instances, openly break them in others simply to try and remain in the contest.
This has come about due to 2 primary drivers - coaches having a say on new rules (a fox in the henhouse if I’ve ever heard it, let alone the RL staple of self interest rules) and a general apathy from decision makers to make radical changes lest the ‘product’ suffers.
The ‘new’ rules of RL have seen the following things becoming the norm, which weren’t anywhere near as prevalent in the games halcyon days (which in my opinion were the 5 years between 1989-1993):
At least 30 ruck infringements a game. From strips, to drops, to holding down, to poor play the balls, to markers not being square, to players lying in the ruck etc etc etc.
How has this happened ? It’s because you have 1 side trying absolutely everything it can to speed the game up versus another trying absolutely everything it can to slow it down. And for the longest time, we have players actively ‘conning’ the referees every tackle now.
Think of it this way - Imagine you are lying on your front lawn, and you want to stand up. Is flopping around like a fish the best way of doing it ?
The there is ball control. Most 1st grade RL players could probably squeeze a footy until it bursts they are that strong and have such big hands. And yet, amazingly, 95% can’t hold onto a ball the second they feel a defender put his arm around it or a hand on it. It’s a con. But, speed and possession are paramount now - so it’s a penalty.
And I haven’t even mentioned wrestling nor the tackling techniques of the modern era.

It has a very easy (if for most, an unpalatable) fix.
1. All one on one legs tackles are automatically dominant, and the tackler is entitled to get to marker before the attacker plays the ball.
2. Tacklers who make initial contact with the hips or lower are entitled to retire to second marker (if secondary and subsequent tacklers assist the tackle)once the tackle is completed until the time the dummy half passes the ball and still be onside.
3. The ball must be played by the attacker only once he has fully regained both feet and neither knee, hand nor the ball is touching the ground. After this, the current rules and interpretation are fine.
4. Any player not making a natural action to regain their feet after being tackled is immediately penalised. The current rules regarding tacklers holding down are fine.
5. The front marker must ensure he gives enough space for the attacker to play the ball on the mark, however the marker is allowed to ‘go’ once the ball touches the attackers foot in the play the ball.
That’s the ruck covered, now the rest.
6. The stripping rule is completely abolished
7. The ‘7 tackle set’ is completely abolished
8. Interchange is abolished - 5 fresh players on the bench - 3 single replacements only, HIA’s and Reportable offences are excluded.

Yes, it’s radical, some would say ‘retrograde’, but the game needs to go backwards to start again, before it morphs to far in the direction of American football.....

Can see merit in what you are saying and you almost had me until points 6, 7 and 8.

One point not covered was in the PTB area. Walking off the mark whilst playing the ball - before and after playing it and then to interfere with the marker (stopping them from basically effecting the next tackle) should draw a penalty.

However you are correct, there is much that needs addressing and fixing.

Not sure if this will be unpopular, but I absolutely loathe the zero tackle restart. Several reasons:
1) It doesn't do what it's meant to. The idea was to encourage attacking play by introducing effectively a penalty for 'negative' kicking dead, but in fact all it does is make teams more conservative in attack.
2) It's palpably unfair. Drop a ball just short of the try line, the oppo gets a normal set starting with a scrum on 10m. Drop the same ball over the line, zero tackle set 20m out. If you put a lot of pressure on a team and end up having a video ref multiply reviewing grounding, you really don't deserve to see all that pressure evaporate if you didn't quite ground the ball.
3) It's obvious why it's never criticised: because it creates more attacking opportunities and thus more excitement. Who cares if it's unfair, if it means more sets ending in attacking positions rather than in midfield? In which case, why not just start all sets on 20m and zero tackles? Or half way?

The annoying thing is there's an incredibly obvious fix out there that no-one discusses. If the idea of the rule change was to stop defensive kicking, just make it so it only applies to kicks from outside the 20m or 30m line. That way you take kicks dead on purpose out of the game but don't penalise genuine attacking kicks.

I guess in theory a team leading narrowly in the final minutes that gets close to the opposition line would just kick dead. But they do anyway - just to the touchline. That's a slightly higher degree of difficulty kick than just booting it through the in-goal... but it's hardly a major element of the game.

"I say good riddance to James Tedesco - I don't think we'll miss him, and he'll prove to be injury prone, and won't hit the heights he's expected to"

I think you took a wrong turn and came to the wrong forum if you think that is unpopular here..

More effective over at the Chook Pen I think...

Underdog, I think you are dead set right. While Tedesco has great skills, Bankrolling him on 1.2 million was going to put our performance with his hammy's. Look he is a greatish player, but not a Great player. While Thompson and Lolohea are not to his level, the right decision was made.

Can see merit in what you are saying and you almost had me until points 6, 7 and 8.

One point not covered was in the PTB area. Walking off the mark whilst playing the ball - before and after playing it and then to interfere with the marker (stopping them from basically effecting the next tackle) should draw a penalty.

However you are correct, there is much that needs addressing and fixing.

That’s a penalty now. It just needs to be enforced properly. I think since the “walk him back instead of a penalty” interpretation has come in, it’s gotten better.

I'm saying I think if we play an attacking team and the penalty count in total is low, our defence won't hold up as good as it has been. The sluggishness of the game due to the amount of penalties has made it easier for our defence.

Not sure if this will be unpopular, but I absolutely loathe the zero tackle restart. Several reasons:
1) It doesn't do what it's meant to. The idea was to encourage attacking play by introducing effectively a penalty for 'negative' kicking dead, but in fact all it does is make teams more conservative in attack.
2) It's palpably unfair. Drop a ball just short of the try line, the oppo gets a normal set starting with a scrum on 10m. Drop the same ball over the line, zero tackle set 20m out. If you put a lot of pressure on a team and end up having a video ref multiply reviewing grounding, you really don't deserve to see all that pressure evaporate if you didn't quite ground the ball.
3) It's obvious why it's never criticised: because it creates more attacking opportunities and thus more excitement. Who cares if it's unfair, if it means more sets ending in attacking positions rather than in midfield? In which case, why not just start all sets on 20m and zero tackles? Or half way?

The annoying thing is there's an incredibly obvious fix out there that no-one discusses. If the idea of the rule change was to stop defensive kicking, just make it so it only applies to kicks from outside the 20m or 30m line. That way you take kicks dead on purpose out of the game but don't penalise genuine attacking kicks.

I guess in theory a team leading narrowly in the final minutes that gets close to the opposition line would just kick dead. But they do anyway - just to the touchline. That's a slightly higher degree of difficulty kick than just booting it through the in-goal... but it's hardly a major element of the game.

agreed, but maybe just make it that (similar to a kick out on the full), the defending team gets the ball back from wherever it was kicked dead with a minimum of 20m. so if you belt it dead from 50 out the other team gets it at halfway

''Everybody talks about their four brothers, we have 17 here so we don't really care about them."

Not sure if this will be unpopular, but I absolutely loathe the zero tackle restart. Several reasons:
1) It doesn't do what it's meant to. The idea was to encourage attacking play by introducing effectively a penalty for 'negative' kicking dead, but in fact all it does is make teams more conservative in attack.
2) It's palpably unfair. Drop a ball just short of the try line, the oppo gets a normal set starting with a scrum on 10m. Drop the same ball over the line, zero tackle set 20m out. If you put a lot of pressure on a team and end up having a video ref multiply reviewing grounding, you really don't deserve to see all that pressure evaporate if you didn't quite ground the ball.
3) It's obvious why it's never criticised: because it creates more attacking opportunities and thus more excitement. Who cares if it's unfair, if it means more sets ending in attacking positions rather than in midfield? In which case, why not just start all sets on 20m and zero tackles? Or half way?

The annoying thing is there's an incredibly obvious fix out there that no-one discusses. If the idea of the rule change was to stop defensive kicking, just make it so it only applies to kicks from outside the 20m or 30m line. That way you take kicks dead on purpose out of the game but don't penalise genuine attacking kicks.

I guess in theory a team leading narrowly in the final minutes that gets close to the opposition line would just kick dead. But they do anyway - just to the touchline. That's a slightly higher degree of difficulty kick than just booting it through the in-goal... but it's hardly a major element of the game.

I’m in total agreement. I can’t stand the 7 tackle rule as it currently stands

I think I posted here about re-instating the old 5 yard protection rule that a player enjoyed after catching a kick on the full in his own quarter - maybe it was so unpopular that it was deleted???

Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

I think it should be 12 tackle rule to give a decent chance of scoring

Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)